Building the Parish Church

Transcription

1 Building the Parish Church To walk round St Peter s is to visit several medieval churches in turn, one imposed on another, each expressing a slightly different aspiration and aesthetic. The various layers may be seen best by focussing on different parts of the church. For example, if you enter the church by the main door off the High Street, passing through the entrance porch, proceed to the main body of the church (the nave) and turn right towards the altar at the east end. Here, around the narrower section (the chancel), you will find evidence of the two oldest churches. The Chancel The Norman Church The chancel was probably built soon after the Norman Conquest, almost certainly by Robert I d Oilly, a great builder, to whom William the Conqueror had granted the manor of Hook Norton. In 1129 his nephew, Robert II d Oilly, gave the church at Hook Norton and its associated property to Oseney Abbey, which he had founded in Oxford. The Abbey retained ownership until its dissolution in 1539 during Henry VIII s Reformation. By common tradition, the ecclesiastical owners remained liable for the upkeep of the chancel in any church they controlled but, being reluctant to spend money on distant parish churches, they undertook few improvements. So through the Middle Ages the chancel remained the essentially Norman part of St. Peter s, while the rest of the church was improved over the centuries by local people and secular patrons. Thus within the chancel you can still see evidence of its appearance in Norman times, although the main east window with its pointed arch is a later addition. Before the present arch into the chancel was built in the fifteenth century, a 1

2 lower rounded arch fronted the chancel, standing between the two stone capitals you can still see behind the present arch. To the left, on the north wall, are the remains Arched doorway in north wall of chancel, 2014 of a rounded archway leading into an old, long demolished chapel; the archway was later turned into a recess used as an aumbry (where chalices and consecrated elements from the Eucharist were stored), but the arched doorway can be seen clearly from the outside. Behind the altar, visible in many of our photographs, is a niche which was probably a repository for a holy relic. To the right, in the south wall, can be glimpsed another niche with two basins (or piscinae) where the communion vessels were washed. Next to it is a blocked-two-seat sedilia (or stone-seats), one of the oldest in the country. Also in this wall was a priest s door, the outline of which can still be clearly seen from outside. These features have been tentatively dated to around 1150, implying they may have been inserted for the convenience of visiting canons from Oseney. The windows on the north side are small and high, reminding us that in Norman times every church was potentially a defensive position. It is not clear whether the Normans had a window at the east end behind the altar; if they did, it too was probably fairly small because when a larger, pointed window was inserted about 1350, the builder put in an extra buttress on the outside to support the wall. The window to the right of the altar, in the south wall of the chancel, was filled in at some point, perhaps because of structural weakness; the present one is a Victorian reconstruction. The Piscinae Joan Lawrence According to the famous architectural historian Nicholas Pevsner, our impressive Norman chancel suggests that the church has always been large. 1 As a whole, the Norman church was cruciform, shaped like a cross, with two arms jutting out to north and south and the nave stretching back to the west. The shape of the 1 Jennifer Sherwood and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Oxfordshire (1974; rev. ed., London: Yale University Press, 2004), page

3 two transepts (the cross pieces) is still obvious, but their character much changed by later alterations. The north transept (behind the curtain and the organ) contained an archway into the chapel that lay north of the chancel; the shape of most of the entrance arch can still be partly seen in the transept s east wall. We cannot know what windows the nave and transepts had (or even whether the nave was flanked by aisles), but it must have been a dark place, always dependent on candle light, which gave it an air of holiness and awe. The most eloquent remain of the Norman church - the treasure of the church, Arthur Mee called it 2 - is the font that now stands behind the main door but in the twelfth century stood in the nave. The font is thought to date from King Stephen s troubled reign (about 1140), though the cover is Jacobean. Around the The Norman Font, showing the figure of Sagittarius. Photograph by Henry W. Taunt, Oxfordshire County Council Photographic Archive (HT9586). font you will see a most eloquent mixture of Christian and pre- Christian symbols: Adam, Eve, Sagittarius, Aquarius, the Ram and the Serpent. This ambiguous symbolism may be taken as showing how older traditions still vied with Christian view of the world, but there are other views. Click here for the many different interpretations of the Font and the light it casts on the thinking of its time. The Anglo-Saxon Church Close examination of the part of the church close to the chancel and north transept has found evidence that the church is much older than 1066, though that is difficult for the casual observer to see. Excavations in the chancel by the Oxford 2 Arthur Mee: Oxfordshire: County of Imperishable Fame (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1942), page

4 Archaeological Unit in 1982 found clear evidence that the Norman church was built upon a substantial Anglo-Saxon church: truncated buttresses, blocked round-headed windows, long and short quoins at corners, and prayer crosses cut in the masonry; little is now visible presumably because these indications were later concealed by plaster. The chapel at the angle of the chancel and the north transept may well also have been pre-norman. Further excavations outside the north wall of the chancel in 1988 revealed the foundations of part of a Saxon chancel and what is possibly the remains of a recluse s cell. In addition, some observers think that the rounded arches and niches in the chancel walls are not typical of the precisely fashioned Romanesque style favoured by the Normans. They suggest that these archways like the piscinae above - are more typical of late Saxon work. If so, the chancel is more accurately described as Late Saxon than Norman, though the remaining capitals of the earlier chancel arch are undoubtedly Romanesque. The Anglo-Saxons distinguished between Minsters or mother churches - major centres where marriages and funerals and other important services could be held - and subsidiary parish churches. Some have suggested that the Hook Norton church may have been a minster, but that is unlikely as minsters housed a monastic community. However, before the Conquest Hook Norton was one of several substantial parish churches that were developing a status just below a minster, and may have exercised some functions of a minster, as indeed befitted a village that, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, was a royal vill or estate. One of the niches in the chancel usually identified as Norman which some people consider Late Saxon. Joan Lawrence The distinguished historian John Blair has suggested that the original village lay farther north near the prehistoric Tadmarton Camp or Campfield, and only moved to its present site after the fatal battle with the Vikings in 913 A.D. 3 If that is so, the 3 John Blair: Hook Norton, regia villa, in Oxoniensia, vol. 51, 1986, pages For Tadmarton Camp, see Ancient and Roman Hook Norton in the Before Written Records section. 4

5 evidence of this Anglo-Saxon church makes it clear that the village had reestablished itself here long before the Normans arrived, probably before 1000 A.D. The Gothic Aisles The Anglo-Saxon and Norman churches had been marked by square and round shapes and a cruciform layout. In the early thirteenth century the church began its transformation into the Gothic style associated with the High Middle Ages, with its emphasis on height, on the pointed arch, and its aspiration of reaching ever upwards. At this time, too, the body of the church was probably broadened with the laying out of the aisles. First of all, say about the time of Magna Carta in 1215, an aisle was added (or perhaps rebuilt) on the north side of the church, opposite the entry door, marked off by a range of pointed arches. These arches are often considered as transitional, pointed in the Gothic fashion but still retaining the roundness of the Romanesque. One oddity of this development was the crudeness with which the aisle connected with the transept: you can see the solid wall at the end of the range of arches nearest the chancel. One explanation is that the church around this time, and This nineteenth-century photograph, taken from an old gallery in the north transept, graphically illustrates the awkwardness with which the north aisle connects with the transept. It has been suggested that an Incluse occupied a small room at the foot of the archway in the centre of the photograph who could not be disturbed. Photograph in the possession of the Village Archive. 5

6 certainly about 1180, had an Incluse, that is to say a person who decided to be walled up inside the church for the remainder of his or her life, devoting themselves to prayer and receiving daily food as alms. As the Incluse had to be able to observe the church services, some have suggested that the place of Inclusion was the Saxon cell just off the chancel, but a more favoured view is that a room existed between the north transept and the north aisle, which prevented the Gothic architect from joining the new aisle on to the transept. The single pillar, showing the style of the earlier design of the southern range of arches. Soon after the north aisle, the southern aisle was built (or rebuilt), presumably nearer There was no Inclusion to cause difficulty here but the arrangement onthe north side of the nave where it met the transept was respected and reflected. The south aisle, however, ran straight through into the south transept, thereby destroying the cruciform shape of the church. The new aisle was as wide as the transept, making it a metre wider that the nave. This represents a significant increase in the capacity of the church, perhaps suggesting an increase in population in the 150 years before the Black Death struck in The south aisle was originally built in the Early English style with its simple elegance. A sense of its appearance may be gained at the western end of the range of arches dividing off the south aisle from the nave: there you will see a slim round pillar reinforcing the arch, a single example left over from the days before the south aisle was modernized in the next century. The south porch (through which we entered) was also built at this time. It still has Early English archways, but unfortunately it has been spoiled by a rough restoration in There are many marks on the stone in the porch, some marks perhaps made by men sharpening their arrows. By the inner doorway there are also tiny crosses scratched on the stonework; Miss Dickins (in her History, pages ) suggested they may have been cut by men going off on dangerous expeditions, dragged off to serve with their lord in Scotland or Wales or France. 6

7 The chancel eastern window, inserted in the fourteenth century. The stained glass is Victorian. Around the early fourteenth century the arches between the south aisle and the nave were rebuilt in the more elaborate and confident Decorated style, which involved increasing their height, making them taller than those encasing the north aisle. The windows in the south aisle were all replaced about the same time and are, in their evident variety, fine examples of the Decorated style as it developed; the large window at the east end of the aisle has very rich Decorated tracery. The windows in the north aisle and the east window in the chancel were also all changed about the same time, about They probably had stained glass, though none of it has survived. The Perpendicular Church The church as we now see it reflects most clearly the further modernisation of the fifteenth century. Growing wealth, probably resulting from the expansion of the wool trade, created the means to further improve the church and so satisfy the spiritual needs of a society that was recovering from the ravages of the Black Death. The great desire seems to have been for more light, perhaps because a few of the wealthier could now follow services from illuminated manuscript books. The great window at the west end of the south aisle belongs to this period, as do the window in the north transept, the clerestory ( clear-story ) windows high above the nave and, above all, the great arch that now frames the chancel. So too do the two transept arches, the northern one being loftier. All are built in the Perpendicular style that was becoming fashionable at that time, with arches flattening out and windows taking on a squarer shape. 7

8 Most significantly, a fine Rood Screen and Rood Loft were added at this time across the chancel opening. The Loft was a wooden gallery that crossed the chancel arch and held a great crucifix, roughly above where the coat of arms appears in this painting, which was done four hundred years later. Access to the gallery (and the roof) was gained by the little staircase that still remains behind the pulpit, on the right of the chancel arch; you can see where the gallery door is now blocked in. The painting is misleading because the box pews were not inserted until after 1660, but it also clearly shows how, together, the Screen and Loft effectively shut the chancel off from the nave, turning the chancel into a Holy of Holies beyond the eyes of the congregation. The 15 th -century Rood Screen and Loft across the opening into the chancel remained until the late 19 th century. The box pews were added after 1660, and the above view painted in 1840 by George Clarke. Beesley, History of Banbury (1841), 6: 126. The addition of the clerestory required the raising of the walls and roof to their present height, which gave the masons opportunities to amuse themselves. Outside, as Arthur Mee saw, winged gargoyles run round the 15th century walls. Inside, corbels were carved at the foot of roof beams in the aisles: some of the faces could be seen as threatening and frightening - like those carved in the south aisle, notably those of the king and bishop yet they were also joyous, grumpy, satirical and 8

9 irreverent. Arthur Mee was especially charmed by one unusual corbel which shows a little man s head peeping through another man s beard! As was common in North Oxfordshire in the Late Middle Ages, wall paintings decorated the church, especially around the chancel arch. The wall paintings in St. Peter s were whitewashed over after the Reformation, and only in were The southern half of the painting over the chancel arch. To the right of the window stands St. Peter, and below him an angel. The mark left by the cross bar of the great rood or cross is visible above the point of the arch. some of the paintings recovered; possibly more remain. There are differences of interpretation surrounding the paintings, both as to their date and the subject-matter. Some think the paintings date from the fourteenth century and that the clerestory window chopped through the painting. Others think the painting was fitted around the clerestory window after the window was inserted in the fifteenth century. Normally such a painting was a Doom, picturing the Last Judgement, but, some argue, there was no room over the chancel arch because of the window. Instead, there are pictures of St Peter and Paul on either side of the window, with two angels 9

10 below swinging censers; this raises the possibility that at the time the church was dedicated to Paul as well as Peter. At the base of the painting a plain mark indicates the position of the crossbar of the great crucifix. Fragment of painting on the south wall of the nave. Does it depict the Seven Deadly Sins or Christ s Harrowing of Hell? Another painting, rather mutilated, of the same period as the other, adorns the south wall of the nave. It is said to show The Seven Deadly Sins and the Jaws of Hell, though some argue the subject is Christ s Harrowing of Hell. Across the nave on the north wall there is a small painting which is thought to be a St Christopher. For an account of the uncovering of these paintings and a fuller discussion of the debate over their date and meaning, click here. For an appreciation of the paintings, see The Church of the Late Middle Ages luridly emphasised the fate that awaited sinners, doomed to a painful afterlife. The portrayal of Hell was fearful, and yet the wall paintings, illuminated by the clerestory windows, the (probable) stained glass of the lower windows, and the corbels must on a bright day have made the nave of 1500 a blaze of colour and visual entertainment. But while the laity enjoyed the decoration, they were separated by the rood screen from the central religious miracle of the Mass that was celebrated in the secluded chancel, and that was to become a key grievance of the reformers of the next century. The most pleasing contribution of the fifteenth century was the feature by which we best recognise the church now - the tower, erected between 1430 and Whereas the church itself was built of ironstone, 10

11 The tower seen from the south west, about Watercolour by George Clarke of Scaldwell, reprinted in Alfred Beesley's extra illustrated copy of his History of Banbury, vol. 6, page 124. Oxfordshire County Council Photographic Archive (D293644a) the tower was erected using a rich green limestone. Round the base runs an unusual deeply-cut quatrefoil decoration similar that runs underneath the clerestory window above the chancel arch. The tower has a fine entrance from the outside, now much ravaged by time, and inside there were two staircases, one for the lower floors, the other to the top storey. In the niche above the spacious west window a statue of St. Peter probably once stood. The tower is topped by eight fine pinnacles, making the whole tower most pleasingly proportioned. Because of these improvements the church is sometimes called a wool church. In fact, Hook Norton parish was marked by general or mixed farming rather than by flocks of sheep, but those who financed the work may well have made their fortunes off the backs of sheep reared elsewhere in the early fifteenth century. Much was probably paid for by Alice Chaucer, who came into her father s property, including the manor of Hook Norton, in 1434, and her husband, the first Duke of Suffolk; together, they did a lot of church building on their extensive properties, always in Perpendicular style. Since Oseney s approval was needed for some works, notably the chancel arch, it helped that between 1430 and 1452 the Abbot of Oseney was a Hook Norton man named Thomas Hokenorton! It was this generation, on the eve of the Wars of the Roses, which completed the final building of Hook Norton s parish church so splendidly, creating the building we admire today standing four-square and high in the centre of the village. Donald Ratcliffe 11

12 References: Margaret Dickins: History of Hook Norton, pages Christopher Wigg, St Peter s Church, Hook Norton (Gloucester, n.d. but after 1949). Christopher Wigg et al., A Guide to the Churches of Swerford, Great Rollright and Hook Norton (rev. ed., n. p., 1990), with illustrations by Joan Lawrence. [John Wheatley, Sheila Terry and Sheila Rider], A Guide to St Peter s Church, Hook Norton, rev. ed. (Hook Norton, 2004). John Wheatley: St Peter s Church, Hook Norton, Oxfordshire (typescript, Village Museum and Archive). E.T. Long: Recently Discovered Wall Paintings in England: II, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, vol. 76 (1940), pages , esp. page 162. E.T. Long: Mediaeval Wall Paintings in Oxfordshire Churches, Oxoniensia, vol. 37 (1972), page 86. Arthur Mee: Oxfordshire: County of Imperishable Fame (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1942), pages Jennifer Sherwood and Nikolaus Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Oxfordshire (1974; rev. ed., London: Yale University Press, 2004), page 651. Kate Tiller and Giles Darkes, eds., An Historical Atlas of Oxfordshire (Oxfordshire Record Society, 2010), page